DNAPL RECOVERY  STRATEGY FOR  COAL TAR/CREOSOTE  DNAPL-IMPACTED  GROUNDWATER May 27, 2004 Neale Misquitta, Key Environment...
Overview <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Review of Site Remediation Issues </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal/Recovery ...
1: Introduction <ul><li>Corporate Significance </li></ul>
1: Introduction  (continued) <ul><li>Active DNAPL Removal Sites </li></ul>
1: Introduction  (continued) <ul><li>Typical Site Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large Scale: 100+ Acres </li></ul></ul><ul>...
2: Review of Site Remediation Issues <ul><li>Operational Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Site Information Review </li></ul><ul><l...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues </li></ul>
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues  (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creosote Production ...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues  (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treatment  Oper...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues  (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treatment  Oper...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Site Information Review  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process/Manufacturing Infor...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Creosote NAPL Characteristics  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Density (1.03 to 1.10...
2: Site Remediation Issues  (continued) <ul><li>Typical Remedies  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Recovery </li></ul></ul><ul>...
3:  NAPL Removal/Recovery <ul><li>Mass Removal Mechanics </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of Ongoing Programs </li></ul><ul><li>E...
3: NAPL Removal/Recovery  (continued)   <ul><li>Mass Removal Mechanics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gravity Separation of NAPL: D...
3: NAPL Removal/Recovery  (continued) <ul><li>Summary of Ongoing Programs  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal at 13 Sites ...
3: NAPL Removal/Recovery  (continued) <ul><li>Endpoints/Risk Reduction  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goals: Protection of Human H...
4: New England Facility
4: New England Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Conceptual Model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treating Conducted from 1923 to 1...
4: New England Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Remedial Goals  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mitigate DNAPL  Migration to River </li...
4: New England Facility  (continued) <ul><li>DNAPL Removal Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 Large Diameter  (18 inches) We...
4: New England Facility  (continued)   <ul><li>DNAPL Removal </li></ul>
4: New England Facility  (continued)   <ul><li>Results of  DNAPL Removal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recovery Wells: 2,000 gpy <...
4: New England Facility  (continued)   <ul><li>Adjunct Remedial  Technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sheetpile Barrier Wall...
4: New England Facility  (continued)   <ul><li>Cost Information  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Groundwater/DNAPL  Recovery...
4: New England Facility  (continued)   <ul><li>Performance </li></ul>Preventing  DNAPL from Migrating to River (View of No...
5: South Carolina Facility <ul><li>Wood Treating Conducted from 1900’s to 1978: Creosote Treated Poles and Railroad Ties  ...
5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Conceptual Model </li></ul>
5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Remedial Goals  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Removal of Mobile DNAPL </li></ul></...
5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>DNAPL Removal Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>15 Shallow Large  Diameter (1...
5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Results of DNAPL Removal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shallow and Deep Wells </li...
5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Adjunct Remedial Technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In-Situ Stabilization ...
  5: South Carolina Facility  (continued) <ul><li>Cost Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Groundwater/DNAPL  Recove...
6: Summary and Conclusions <ul><li>From Existing Sites, Over 20,000 gpy Creosote  NAPL Removed </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Remo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dnapl Recovery Strategy For Coal Tar Final

2,544 views

Published on

The 2004 presentation at Monterey. Thanks

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Dnapl Recovery Strategy For Coal Tar Final

  1. 1. DNAPL RECOVERY STRATEGY FOR COAL TAR/CREOSOTE DNAPL-IMPACTED GROUNDWATER May 27, 2004 Neale Misquitta, Key Environmental Mitchel Brourman, Beazer East, Inc. Monterey Conference
  2. 2. Overview <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Review of Site Remediation Issues </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal/Recovery </li></ul><ul><li>New England Facility </li></ul><ul><li>South Carolina Facility </li></ul><ul><li>Summary and Conclusions </li></ul>
  3. 3. 1: Introduction <ul><li>Corporate Significance </li></ul>
  4. 4. 1: Introduction (continued) <ul><li>Active DNAPL Removal Sites </li></ul>
  5. 5. 1: Introduction (continued) <ul><li>Typical Site Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Large Scale: 100+ Acres </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific Impact Areas: Process Areas, Impoundments </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impact Media: Soil, Groundwater, Sediments, Surface Water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Constituents of Concern: Primarily PAHs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regulatory Programs: RCRA, CERCLA, State, Voluntary </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Financial Considerations </li></ul></ul>Important to Develop a Programmatic, Consistent Approach to Address Site Remediation.
  6. 6. 2: Review of Site Remediation Issues <ul><li>Operational Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Site Information Review </li></ul><ul><li>Creosote NAPL Characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>Typical Remedies </li></ul>
  7. 7. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues </li></ul>
  8. 8. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creosote Production </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Product of Coal Tar Distillation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Middle Distillation Fraction </li></ul></ul></ul>
  9. 9. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treatment Operations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Pressure Treatment Cylinders </li></ul></ul></ul>
  10. 10. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Operational Issues (continued) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treatment Operations </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Site Information Review </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Process/Manufacturing Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Historical Waste Management Issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Geology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydrology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydrogeology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other </li></ul></ul>Addressing Creosote NAPL Poses Unique Challenges.
  12. 12. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Creosote NAPL Characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Density (1.03 to 1.10) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Viscosity (10+ cp) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inter-Facial Tension (12 to 16 dynes/cm 2 ) </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. 2: Site Remediation Issues (continued) <ul><li>Typical Remedies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Recovery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Containment Barriers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hydraulic Barriers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced Bioremediation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Source Area Stabilization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitored Natural Attenuation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. 3: NAPL Removal/Recovery <ul><li>Mass Removal Mechanics </li></ul><ul><li>Summary of Ongoing Programs </li></ul><ul><li>Endpoints/Risk Reduction </li></ul>
  15. 15. 3: NAPL Removal/Recovery (continued) <ul><li>Mass Removal Mechanics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Gravity Separation of NAPL: Density Difference </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Passive or Active: Balance of Forces, Upward Groundwater Velocity versus DNAPL Downward Velocity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>v = [( ρ NAPL - ρ w )g/(18 μ w )]d 2 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Capture Zone: Critical Gradient Concept i c > P c / ρ w gL </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. 3: NAPL Removal/Recovery (continued) <ul><li>Summary of Ongoing Programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal at 13 Sites Using Wells and Trenches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Over 20,000 Gallons of NAPL Per Year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Historical Collection of Over 300,000 Gallons of NAPL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal Programs Typically Start with Pilot Studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal Conducted in Conjunction with Variety of Approaches </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. 3: NAPL Removal/Recovery (continued) <ul><li>Endpoints/Risk Reduction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Goals: Protection of Human Health and the Environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal Provides a Source Removal Technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Endpoint: NAPL Removal to the Point of Diminishing Returns </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides Risk Reduction Equivalent to Other Mass Removal/Source Reduction Technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Typically Used in Conjunction with Other Technologies </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. 4: New England Facility
  19. 19. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Conceptual Model </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wood Treating Conducted from 1923 to 1983: Creosote Treated Poles and Railroad Ties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Source at Former Impoundment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Limited to 60 Feet of Fluvial/Glacial Deposits Overlying Weakly-foliated, Meta-sedimentary Rock </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Discharge Seepage Face to Adjacent River </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Remedial Goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mitigate DNAPL Migration to River </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recover Mobile DNAPL </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>DNAPL Removal Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>5 Large Diameter (18 inches) Wells </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3 DNAPL Seepage Collection Sumps/Trenches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enhanced Gradient Recirculation Trenches </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>DNAPL Removal </li></ul>
  23. 23. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Results of DNAPL Removal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recovery Wells: 2,000 gpy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sumps:1,000 gpy </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Adjunct Remedial Technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sheetpile Barrier Wall: 650 feet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phytoremediation </li></ul></ul>View of SBS Looking North from South Sump
  25. 25. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Cost Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Groundwater/DNAPL Recovery System $1.2m </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Recovery Wells/Sumps $400K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Barrier Wall $800K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O&M/Monitoring $150K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare to In-situ Thermal Treatment >$10.0m </li></ul></ul>
  26. 26. 4: New England Facility (continued) <ul><li>Performance </li></ul>Preventing DNAPL from Migrating to River (View of North Sump Looking Southwest) Mobile DNAPL Releases
  27. 27. 5: South Carolina Facility <ul><li>Wood Treating Conducted from 1900’s to 1978: Creosote Treated Poles and Railroad Ties </li></ul><ul><li>DNAPL Source at Process Area and Former Impoundments </li></ul><ul><li>DNAPL Limited to 40 Feet of Fluvial/Lacustrine Deposits Overlying Clay Unit </li></ul>
  28. 28. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>Conceptual Model </li></ul>
  29. 29. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>Remedial Goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Removal of Mobile DNAPL </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prevent Constituents from Migrating to Surface Water </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prevent Off-Site Migration of Constituents in Groundwater </li></ul></ul>
  30. 30. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>DNAPL Removal Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>15 Shallow Large Diameter (18 inches) Wells </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>4 Deep Large Diameter Well </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Groundwater Discharge to POTW </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>Results of DNAPL Removal </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Shallow and Deep Wells </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3,000 gpy </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>Adjunct Remedial Technologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In-Situ Stabilization of 7,000 Cubic Yards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monitored Natural Attenuation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Groundwater Hydraulic Control </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. 5: South Carolina Facility (continued) <ul><li>Cost Information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial Groundwater/DNAPL Recovery System: Pilot Scale $400K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DNAPL Recovery Wells $600K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stabilization $900K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>O&M/Monitoring $250K </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compare to In-situ Thermal Treatment >$20.0m </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. 6: Summary and Conclusions <ul><li>From Existing Sites, Over 20,000 gpy Creosote NAPL Removed </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal via Large Diameter Wells/Sumps Effective at Addressing Mass Removal </li></ul><ul><li>Mobile DNAPL Effectively Removed </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal Typically Conducted in Conjunction with Other Remedial Techniques </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Removal Should be Conducted in a Phased Approach </li></ul><ul><li>Site-specific Considerations are Critical in Design of NAPL Recovery Wells </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Recovery Provides Risk Reduction that is Similar to Other Source Remediation Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>NAPL Recovery is Significantly Cheaper than Other Source Remediation Technologies (Thermal) </li></ul>

×